Talk:Marshall Strabala

Proposed Edits
I recommend the following edits and updates to both the Marshall Strabala page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala and the related Shanghai Tower page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Tower. I look forward to your response. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Architect’s page 1. Add new sentence (see draft below) to introduction. It would become second sentence on page:“Strabala also serves as Chief Architect of Shanghai Tower on behalf of Shanghai Construction Group, the facility’s developer.” Sources: Pacific Rim Construction trade magazine, Hong Kong, Feb 27, 2013, “Shanghai Tower: Future Living Today,” http://www.prc-magazine.com/shanghai-tower-future-living-today/

ICS-TV Shanghai (International Channel Shanghai), “Minds of Millionaires” program, originally aired Dec. 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1zLDFY3H0 See the cable channel’s program description for Minds of Millionaires on the channel’s website at: http://www.icshanghai.com/en/Programs/2013-02-01/118.html

2. Revise wording in opening sentence which is obviously incorrect English from “participated in the design” to simply “designed”…. I believe this old wording was the case of another editor doing some inappropriate "cherry picking," which Wikipedia does not permit Sources: Houston Culture Map, http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/04-09-11-in-and-outs-of-the-new-houston-ballet-center-for-dance-from-architect-marshall-strabala/

Houston Business Journal, “Marshall Strabala gives new meaning to 'super-tall'”, Dec. 26, 2010, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09/27/newscolumn2.html?page=all

VM Space, architecture magazine, Seoul, Korea, “Integrated Design of Technology and Creative Imagination, July 26, 2010, http://www.vmspace.com/eng/sub_emagazine_view.asp?category=people&idx=10862 ....and I can provide several more credible media sources if you would like more.

3. Gensler paragraph Insert four new words in this sentence......as did in previous sentence for clarification:

“However, Gensler has claimed in an unsuccessful lawsuit that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[13]”

Add that Strabala was hired as “Director of Design” at Gensler. This title was previously included on this page, but mysteriously deleted without reason. See title in previous page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=307509620 Source: Sources: OfficeNewsWire.com, “J Marshall Strabala Joins Gensler Houston as Director of Design,” http://www.officenewswire.com/1642, retrieved Feb. 28, 2013

4. Formation of new firm The title “Formation of new firm” does not work here. It would have been accurate back in 2010 when the firm was formed, but in 2013, it is not accurate. It is old news when the “formation” happened three years ago. The clearest and most accurate way to title this graph would be to call it “2DEFINE Architects.” After all, the other two graphs are named after Strabala’s past employers so why would it not be fitting to name the employer here, too?

5. 2DEFINE Architects graph In this graph, which can be renamed 2DEFINE Architects, there should again be reference to Strabala serving as Chief Architect of the Shanghai Tower, working for the developer. (see point #1 above for sources and info)

Shanghai Tower page 1.      Comparable to other page, insert sentence that reads “Marshall Strabala serves as Chief Architect of Shanghai Tower on behalf of the Shanghai Construction Group, the facility’s developer. Strabala had previously led the design of the facility when he was Director of Design at Gensler.”

Sources: OfficeNewsWire.com, “J Marshall Strabala Joins Gensler Houston as Director of Design” http://www.officenewswire.com/1642, retrieved Feb. 28, 2013

Pacific Rim Construction trade magazine, Hong Kong, Feb 27, 2013, “Shanghai Tower: Future Living Today,” http://www.prc-magazine.com/shanghai-tower-future-living-today/

ICS-TV Shanghai (International Channel Shanghai), “Minds of Millionaires” program, originally aired Dec. 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1zLDFY3H0 Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.70.97 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on each proposal: 1) The Tower is already mentioned in the appropriate section; 2) "participated in the design of" is proper grammar, and accurate; 3) that would be POV, especially since the case was appealed, and as for the title, he was director of design for one region and a COI preferred that not be included as such if I recall; 4) the firm was new when it was created ("new" as in, "not existing before") and this most accurrately describes what happened - he started a new firm; 5) this is already properly discussed in the existing text. I see no reason to make any of these edits, and think that several of them would be POV. I also find it interesting that editor 69.198.70.97 made what could have been construed as a legal threat in May 2011 at this very article, one of only three edits so far. (In October 2011, an editor who also regularly used the term "graphs" was blocked for making similar statements.) You wouldn't happen to have any relationship to Strabala, would you? Novaseminary (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Edits-Followup
You never answered my #1 question above (written from ISP 69.198.70.97) you answered something else entirely. I ask that a new sentence be added that states that, in addition to his 2DEFINE position, he is Chief Architect of Shanghai Tower on behalf of Shanghai Tower Construction and Development, and that fact should be added as a new second sentence on the page introduction, His title should be on this page, just as other Wikipedia biography pages for executives include their proper titles. If you doubt the accuracy of his title, which you obviously do, please pick up the phone and call Gensler’s LA headquarters or Shanghai Tower Construction and Development in Shanghai, the client who he works for and property owner. They can confirm for you. Go ahead! His title can replace reference on page to his working at “...the behest of the client,” as this is more fitting and to the point. Additional sources include:

International Channel Shanghai, Minds of Millionaires TV program, Dec. 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1zLDFY3H0

Consult Australia and Association of Consulting Architects, seminar flier, Nov 2012 seminar, Perth, Australia https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9WUXR37t7sYJ:www.architecture.com.au/i-cms_file%3Fpage%3D34531/CAACApresentMarshallStrabalaWA.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioXAb13-waWYCFAHH1gl9CW1J3D8-K9Cim8JaKU13eMbCiIScv0v6p4XvyZpGDh5bUl4PmMMOxzsYuE_tnuAg8gyJL3CGk9hcLyAob2tazMlXkgQN7Nbo1FRrn7aBXeaYF6dHw&sig=AHIEtbQcUL5s5z36nKTNx3izKK2i8V5o6A

Pacific Rim Magazine, Feb. 27, 2013, Shanghai Tower-Future Living Today

VM Space Magazine, Seoul, Korea, Integrated Design of Technology and Creative Imagination”, July 26, 2010 http://www.vmspace.com/eng/sub_emagazine_view.asp?category=people&idx=10862

City Weekend magazine, Shanghai, Dec. 2012, “Shanghai 2013 in Preview” http://www.cityweekend.com.cn/shanghai/articles/blogs-shanghai/cw-radar/shanghai-2013-in-preview-the-biggest-stories-in-the-coming-year-/

Look forward to your response. If you continue to disagree without any merit, I will be happy to take this matter asap to other editors for their views, and to Dispute Resolution (DR). Thank you so much.RobertJoeIllinois (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling the property owner would be OR. I think the text is fine as it is now. And the sources above are not RSs, and one triggered my antivirus as a trojan horse. Hmm... Novaseminary (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Chief Architect Novaseminary, I ask you to reconsider your recent decision to exclude reference to the architect serving as Chief Architect of Shanghai Tower. Besides the several reliable sources that I have already presented to you with proof of his title, here is one more. Engineering News Record, McGraw-Hill’s “bible” of the engineering and construction field published a Sept. 25, 2012 story called “China Struggles with Supertall Building Boom.”  The author, Nadine Post, wrote: “The core will top out at 580 m some time next year, said J. Marshall Strabala, founding partner of Shanghai-based 2Define Architects, which is serving as the tower’s chief architect for the building's quasi-governmental owner-developer, Shanghai Tower Construction & Development Co. Ltd, since 2010. “Construction is going at a great pace,” said Strabala. But the architect said the interfaces at the floor slabs, where the outer glass skin and the inner skin of the occupied tower meet, “is slowing the pace somewhat,” said Strabala. “There is so much going on there,” he added, including a sliding assembly and the need for a two-hour fire rating. (END OF QUOTED MATERIAL) The story is accessible on ENR’s website for a fee. I found a cached version of page 3 of the story, with the architect's inforamtion at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://enr.construction.com/buildings/building_types/2012/0925-China-Grapples-with-Supertall-Building-Boom.asp?page=3   I look forward to your response.RobertJoeIllinois (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ENR says 2DEFINE is serving as chief architect, meaning it is not a personal title of Strabala's. Strabala and 2DEFINE are not one in the same, are they? If so, perhaps we need to reword the "starting a new firm" section. He is not part-time with the firm and part-time hired directly by the Tower project which has given him the official title "Chief Architect", is he? 2DEFINE does more than this one project, right? The article says he remains on the project after his departure from his prior firm (even quoting him). I think that covers it. Remember, this is not his resume. Novaseminary (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nova.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At dismissal (memorandum) it states specifically under Facts that "From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect." During oral arguments 9/12/2013 it seems as if Gensler's own attorney (Manning) under cross by the judges admits several times that Strabala had and held the title "Director of Design" for the Shanghai Tower and that Strabala was the only known person with a corporate context to boot - unfortunately the MP3 is a long listen http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?caseyear=12&casenumber=2256&listCase=List+case%28s%29 - so just listen to the MP3 segment from 10:55 to 12:38. BTW admissions by attorneys at oral arguments are binding. IMHO just seems that there are enough public citations of believable character that constantly show the attribution of title "Director of Design" is justified.  Seriously think about it a window washer could continue to work on the Shanghai tower including Strabala's title benefits the public as to his role as written it is ambiguous is he a bean counter (finance) is he a project manager (man power) etc. etc..108.75.223.67 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a WP:COI so I will just add this to the Talk thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 October 2013‎
 * While I did not listen to the audio file, I do not see what the issue is. The article currently says: "Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the 'bulk of the design work'." Later the article notes: "According to Strabala, he 'continues to be involved in the Shanghai Tower project at the behest of the client.'" Is the description inaccurate? Earlier in this talk section you seemed to want to call him the "Chief Architect," but now seem to prefer "Director of Design for the Shanghai Tower," but also say he was "Design Director, i.e., an architect." If anything, the current text ("led the design work") is the sort of descriptive, non-jargon prose WP should use, rather than relying on any of the "titles" you seem to be proposing, whether it is disputed or not. I'm not saying you are wrong (though I don't know you are right). I am saying, who cares? The article covers it already. Novaseminary (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Clean up and simplificaton of Lawsuits section WRT Gensler
I am making an edit today to the "Lawsuits" section as Gensler itself dismissed the lawsuit.

Note the second ref is available publicly as I uploaded it to scribed for the purposes of this discussion.

Given that It is my opinion that intermediate details such as the following are now noise and are as such uninteresting with respect to the Marshall Strabala page
 * Gensler itself dismissed the litigation dropping all prior allegations
 * the case is now old since it is no longer active
 * initial dismissal (procedural grounds)
 * appeal (against procedural grounds)
 * remand back to the lower court

The only interesting thing here is that Gensler sued Strabala alleging certain claims but later dropped their own lawsuit.

It might have been a fascinating change to the law (legal expansion of the Lanham Act from merely goods to also include services) if Gensler had actually pursued it's option to proceed with a trial at the district court and eventually prevailed. Yet Gensler did not instead they dropped all their claims.

Perhaps there is an interesting precedent e.g. Gensler could have continued under an expanded definition of the Lanham Act, however it [Gensler] chose not to continue the litigation it itself initiated. IMHO if the expansion of the "Lanham Act from merely goods to also include services" is in fact newsworthy or even interesting to other's (it certainly isn't for met) then it deserves it own WikiPedia page or perhaps a small reference placed in the Lanham Act page.

Not that it matters, but one wonders if Gensler was merely practicing vexatious litigation, as when looking at the Appellate courts remand

These considerations make it tempting to affirm the district court’s judgment, though not for the district court’s reasons. Yet Strabala has not asked us to take that course. His brief defends the district court’s reasoning and does not ask us to affirm on a different ground. It does not invoke Rule 9(b) or contend that sophisticated clients understand that no single architect is the sole designer of a monster project such as Shanghai Tower. [emphasis added]

Yet IMHO due to the nature of the remand where the appellate court it is apparent that the lower court's judgment would have been affirmed if Strabala had asked for relief on different grounds (rather than relying an the procedural reasoning of the lower court). Perhaps this is why Gensler dropped it's own litigation as they had a nearly insurmountable burden when looking at the remand decision.

Consider me a WP:POTENTIALCOI 108.75.223.67 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Jon Strabala
 * Please do not edit with a COI. Obtain consensus here first. I don't know what to make of most of what you wrote here on talk, and I reverted your edits. But I will add the fact that Gensler dropped the suit. Do we know why? Was this part of a settlement like the SOM case? Do any secondary sourced state this? Novaseminary (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI I'm a POTENTIALCOI and I identified myself as such, this is fine as long as I place factual cites and back up my information with references. I don't see why after reviewing Wikipedia policy that I shouldn't be allowed to perform edits.  FYI I consider you a a bit of a POTENTIALCOI yourself due to your past behaviors, edits, and reversions, and past escalations - but that's in the past.


 * Regardless the page under lawsuits section at least thanks to me people know there is currently no litigation. Odd that you said "I don't know what to make of most of what you wrote", Novaseminary, my edit on the public page was factually and completely straight forward.  I removed noise that has no real bearing and merely stated the obvious - yet you don't know what to make of most of what you wrote (it is almost verbatim from the cite)?


 * However after almost four years of litigation, on April 24, 2015 Gensler voluntarily dismissed its suit without prejudice dropping all claims against Strabala.


 * And then essential revert my changes without reading the above TALK (reprinted below):


 * Given that
 * Gensler itself dismissed the litigation dropping all prior allegations
 * the case is now old since it is no longer active
 * It is my opinion that intermediate details such as the following are now noise and are as such uninteresting with respect to the Marshall Strabala page
 * initial dismissal (procedural grounds)
 * appeal (against procedural grounds)
 * remand back to the lower court
 * I don't think I could have been more clear, yet you say "I don't know what to make of most of what you wrote" perhpas you should reach "consensus" with me and others before such reversions.


 * You asked me "Do we know why? Was this part of a settlement like the SOM case?" (IMHO) this is a result of a company that engaged in what many consider malicious litigation, that really had no case. The bottom line is that the only "fact" here is that after years of fruitless litigation Gensler dropped it's own case, e.g. "voluntarily dismissed", despite losing on summary judgment on a procedural grounds and then winning a remand against the procedural grounds.  There is no settlement, and no one but Gensler knows why the dismissed there own case.


 * But now the Marshall_Strabala#Career WRT Gensler is highly inconsistent one sentence currently says
 * According to Gensler in a lawsuit which, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[10]
 * But should say something like
 * According to Gensler in their failed lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[10]
 * -or better yet (remove all this lawsuit stuff form this section)-
 * After leaving SOM, Strabala joined the Houston, Texas, office of the architectural firm Gensler in 2006.[2][4] Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the "bulk of the design work".[4]


 * Strabala also has been credited for leading Gensler's efforts in designing Hess Tower (Houston, 2010) and the Houston Ballet Center for Dance (2011).[11][12][13]


 * Strabala left Gensler in 2010.[4]


 * The point here is Gensler "tried" to use legal avenues to silence Marshall Strabala but failed for whatever reason. IMHO it seems like this is "old" information.  In in fact it has relevance it shouldn't in the Career section the "failed" lawsuit shouldn't even be mentioned here in the Career section as there already exists a section for that called "Lawsuits".


 * Once again I point out the fact "The only interesting thing here is that Gensler sued Strabala alleging certain claims but later dropped their own lawsuit." you, Novaseminary, might have a different take but in the legal world it says a HECK of a LOT to initiate a lawsuit and then drop it yourself. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Consider me a WP:POTENTIALCOI Jon Strabala


 * I in no way have a COI. I have no connection to anyone, anything, or any topic covered in this article. Anyway, when I said I don't know what to make of what you wrote, I meant your initial talk post in this section. I have clarified my original response to make that clear. I would now add that I don't exactly know what you are now asking for. The one fact you mention is in the article -- that the lawsuit was dropped (as was the other one, which an RS reported was dropped as a settlement). You mention some opinions and POV editorialize some regarding what you claim (without citation to any source, let alone a RS) was "silencing." Then you seem to want to delete some well-sourced, relevant facts about a situation that received much coverage because it is no longer "interesting" in light of the outcome.
 * Your opinions obviously don't belong in the article. The fact is in the article. The facts you acknowledge are facts but want out as not interesting, and which are a significant part of coverage in RSs are in the relevant sections and carry the appropriate weight (WP:WEIGHT). I believe the article is fine as is based on what you've recounted above. Novaseminary (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You asked me questions I answered - you didn't like my answer, so you make an ad hominem attack against me saying to me "Your opinions obviously don't belong in the article" - shouldn't I have the right to say the same to you - ah but WikiPedia doesn't work that way so I will be the one here that behaves.


 * Then go on pontificate and lecture me that my anwser back to your questions here in the 'Talk' area was "without citation to any source, let alone a RS" - yet I specifically said "There is no settlement, and no one but Gensler knows why the dismissed there own case". The term "silencing" was not an opinion but actually talked about by others in the same field talking about this very case at a well respected architecture conference - regardless I didn't put it the article.  I really don't understand your beef against me, all I can say don't ask me questions in this forum if you don't like the answers you get.


 * I hold firmly that the filing of the case [by Gensler] and the the dropping of their own case [by Gensler] is actually of more interest in terms of this article than that of all the other legal citations - I you don't understand way well that's not my problem I can't help you on that. My opinion might be shared by others - who knows (obviously it isn't shared by you - that's fine but anyone is free to chime in)?.


 * Gensler filed a lawsuit, then they withdrew it, because of their actions (for what ever reason) it diminishes the importance of the intermediate details of the Gensler suit - hey if it rocky your world so much please by all means put it on Gensler's Wikipedia page for all I care. Come to think of it since you say this stuff is "well-sourced, relevant facts about a situation that received much coverage" it surely belongs on Gensler page and perhaps the Shanghai_Tower.   After all the Shanghai_Tower page says "The Shanghai Tower was designed by the American architectural firm Gensler, with Chinese architect Jun Xia leading the design team." shouldn't it say "The Shanghai Tower was designed by the American architectural firm Gensler, with Chinese architect Jun Xia leading the design team, However architect Marshall Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the 'bulk of the design work'" etc. etc..


 * I am so curious if I or anyone else modified the Gensler article to this effect supra (copying the verbatim blocks from the Marshall Strabala article about the litigation) would as you just said the "well-sourced, relevant facts" on Marshall_Strabala's article acceptable on the Gensler article or the Shanghai_Tower articles. Or because I add them or you don't agree in the contect of other articles that the same exact text somehow morphs into as you say "opinions [that] obviously don't belong in the article" on the Gensler article or the Shanghai_Tower article and as such be an unacceptable update.


 * Just because I am a self identified WP:POTENTIALCOI doesn't make my opinion less valuable than you a who "say" you no way have a COI.


 * BTW I asked for only two things to be considered 1) thing e.g. Marshall_Strabala#Career shouldn't duplicate the legal section (you didn't understand me) and #2) that since "well-sourced, relevant facts about a situation that received much coverage" become less relevant compare to the fact Gensler itself dropped all claims against Marshall Strabala despite of their "well sourced, relevent facts" perhaps the importance of such "old" cites start to pale.  I was abiding by your request and merely discusion it discussion.


 * Regardless in a few week (or months) I will add some citations and edits here hopefully you will be convinced that they are "well-sourced, relevant facts" and we will pick this up again.


 * In summary from my actual summary e.g. "Clean up and simplification of Lawsuits section WRT Gensler" is all I ever intended - I couldn't have been more clear.108.75.223.67 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Jon Strabala

No ad hominem attack intended. No editors should add their opinion into a Wikipedia article. So while your opinion does not belong in an article, neither does my opinion belong in a Wikipedia article. If you would like to read more about that, read WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. I meant only that we should focus on the reported facts, not your opinion about what the lawsuits were about as you presented it above. Novaseminary (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)